I hate that it's become bad to send people your thoughts and prayers. It may not do anything, but to have meant so much to so many people is something worth thinking about.
It's only bad if you're doing it when you have the option of doing something helpful. Like politicians offering prayers for tragedies that are the result of bad public policy.
It's not bad to send thoughts and prayers! It is only considered hypocritical when someone offers those thoughts and prayers despite protecting/enshrining/supporting/etc. the thing which directly resulted in the tragedy. For example, strong supporters of gun rights and those who suffer from gun violence. I also extend my deepest sympathies to her family and those who she was close with. It is hard to lose someone, and I am sure it is even worse when a lot of people will be disgustingly cheering the death.
The fact that we're so fast to assign these values to people we don't know on the internet makes me sad at times. I get it, it's just how people are.
You bring up a good example, but I'd probably be in the category of believing guns are good for a democratic society (or at least so deeply entrenched that they can't get pulled out at this point). However, I also believe in some pretty strong gun controls and requirements for a more modern society. I'm not foolish enough to believe that people with guns could win a civil war in the day of modern weapons, I also don't think it's the most important civil liberty to protect for a free society. But it's a political pressure that can do some good, and there are very few practical means of getting rid of it, and I'd rather we focus on global warming while making reasonable changes to gun laws to minimize deaths where we can.
Every reader of this paragraph will have a different reaction to my personal level of hypocrisy when I send thoughts and take a moment of silence for the victims of any shooting. It's subjective, but without that context I assume a lot more would find my thoughts and prayers objectionable. I get your stance, there's a lot of the never my guns people on the internet, and a lot among politicians.
I've just personally been pushed by tribalism to not be able to talk to many people on the internet over my personal beliefs and share ideas. I enjoy the other side of every argument, but when people get attacked for their ideas they tend to shutdown and look for others who agree more.
> I'm not foolish enough to believe that people with guns could win a civil war in the day of modern weapons
I know HN hates opinions like this, but I'm a very staunch 2a supporter. My position is that citizens should have so-called "weapons of war", the same automatic weapons that the military carries with tons of ammunition. Joe six-pack should be able to walk to his local gun store and buy an M60 if he so pleases. In such a case, there's a very good chance that civilians could win a civil war.
Do you also believe Joe six-pack should be in any way trained to be able to use that M60? Should be held to some standards, be they ethical or professional? Maybe require a license? Or does the 2A mean all bets are off?
I'll be honest - after the last few months I don't know if I trust an armed American populace any more than an armed government. Simply putting guns into the hands of vigilantes doesn't necessarily lead to a freer state. I certainly don't want idiots like that couple in St. Louis to have even more firepower.
Sure, but I don't particularly trust the gov't to enforce those standards. FWIW I think an idiot is much more likely to do something stupid with a handgun than with a twenty pound belt-fed.
I see nothing principally wrong with what the couple in St. Louis did (i.e. defending one's property), though the wife was an absolute dumbass to point her handgun at the crowd. Anyone competent knows not to do that without serious intent to fire.
I understand your position: moron with automatic is possibly more dangerous than moron with semi-auto. But I think there are risks and downsides to living in a free society, and that's one.
Given that there's a relevant situation, how do you feel about BLM doing peaceful protests, rather than grabbing some guns and killing the cops/politicians that defend them?
I think a civil war over the murder of a few people is not yet warranted. We've still gpt the ballot and jury boxes before we get there. And it is worth noting that not all protests have been peaceful, though it only takes a few bad actors to classify one as violent. I do think that a heavily-armed populace could reduce the rates of police brutality.
